[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

suitability of Multi-Arch: allowed for cython?



Hi all,

While reviewing the cross-build of abpoa[0] as discussed with
Helmut at Hamburg, I noticed that I tripped on the carpet with
qemu-aarch64 binfmt running foreign architecture binaries during
abpoa cross build; the python3.11 run was arm64.  When trying to
resolve the issue, I ended up in the situation of observing that
I could cross build abpoa by marking the cython3 build
dependency as :native.

cython3 is roughly a transpiler that converts python3 or pyrex
into C code.  As far as I could witness, the output C code was
not particularly architecture dependent on first sight, but I
may be wrong.  I spent some time in the wiki pages dedicated to
Multi-Arch support[1], but I didn't manage to identify what
makes a package eligible to Multi-Arch: allowed.  I was hoping
that perhaps, cython3 would be eligible to that marker, but I
don't know what to be careful about before granting such marker.
I noticed that the package had maintainer scripts, although
produced by dh-python, not sure whether that would interfere.

Would marking cython3 as Multi-Arch: allowed be the correct
approach here, or is this one case where :native has to be used?
Or am I missing something else entirely?

[0]: https://salsa.debian.org/med-team/abpoa
[1]: https://wiki.debian.org/Multiarch/

Have a nice day,  :)
-- 
Étienne Mollier <emollier@emlwks999.eu>
Fingerprint:  8f91 b227 c7d6 f2b1 948c  8236 793c f67e 8f0d 11da
Sent from /dev/pts/2, please excuse my verbosity.

Attachment: signature.asc
Description: PGP signature


Reply to: